Dear "60 Minutes":
As a psychologist with a long-term commitment to children with autism, I watched with great interest your recent segment "Apps for Autism." The encouraging picture you presented was welcome. Like many parents and many colleagues, I have seen the extraordinary array of skills that children on the spectrum can possess -- even when they are deemed to be "non-verbal" and severely limited in cognitive functioning.
At the same time, I was dismayed by serious failures and distortions in the material you presented. Briefly, what are the failures and distortions? First, the attraction that children with autism have for computers and high tech devices has been long known and described. Apps make high-tech tools more accessible and easier to use, but they do not reflect the quantum change your reporting suggested where children are enabled to become effective producers of language across a vast span of communication.
Second, the segment suggested that well-formed language was inside the individuals, just waiting for a means of expression (namely, the app). But the content of the apps that you showed was essentially a mirror of the language that has dominated teaching programs for decades. Essentially, that language reflects two basic forms: one is labeling or naming objects and people (e.g., using nouns to identify "ball, shoe, man," and so on); the other is language for expressing I want requests (e.g., making various statements about items and actions one hopes to have such as "I want banana" or "I want TV.")
Unfortunately, this content -- despite being widespread in use and expensive to implement -- does little to advance the children's development. As but one example, take the issue of naming. Imagine a child with autism mastering 1,000 nouns -- an attainable feat and one that leads many parents to feel a sense of triumph. Now, imagine taking those 1,000 nouns and trying to actually converse with someone. Within one word, you will realize that it is not possible to speak with a repertoire confined to nouns. Parents may take pleasure in seeing their children recognize objects, particularly when they represent relatively esoteric words such as "dinosaur" and "vehicle" and "locomotive." But the fact of the matter is that training in this area does nothing to enable a child to use language in a meaningful manner.
Consideration of "I want" request language involves different, but no less negative, forces. At first, parents are delighted to see their children making a range of requests. It leads them to believe that this is the start of meaningful interaction. They are convinced that if they show the children that their language "matters," their children are sure to relate better and to converse more. However, as many parents have found, "I want" request language rarely advances beyond "I want" request language. You essentially have a child who uses language to make endless requests and to do little else with his or her language.
As the children enter adolescence, the issue becomes even more problematic. It then is not simply a failure of language to advance, but a major breakdown in behavior. The children are now bigger and stronger and their wants have expanded -- often in realms that even the most giving of parents cannot permit. This leads the parents to deny the requests -- a move that leads the children to major acting out, often in aggressive and destructive ways. When viewed from the children's perspective, this is only reasonable. They have been encouraged for years to believe that the granting of what they want is of the highest priority to their parents. Now these vulnerable individuals see the basic pattern that they have relied on for years being challenged or rejected. What the parents then see is the ultimate outcome of encouraging "I want" language.
It would have been valid, albeit not inspiring, had you said that apps currently are a more attractive device for following the same methods that have long dominated the teaching of children with autism. But that was not your message. The segment clearly was aimed at saying that current apps represent major advances in opening up the invaluable tool of language for the children.
Admittedly, the failures and distortions do not rest with "60 Minutes" alone. The field itself has greatly contributed to the confusion. Since autism was first recognized, language and communication difficulties -- two vast and intricate domains -- have been acknowledged as central to the syndrome. This has naturally led intervention efforts to be focused on these realms.
It has led to something else as well. Its acknowledged importance has meant that one does not have to justify teaching language or communication. It's a "given." And "givens" invariably have unintended consequences. In this situation, one of the unintended consequences has been that program developers need not think, in depth, about precisely what skills can and should be taught. If it's language, it's "good."
This is what has permitted so many programs to concentrate on "naming" and "I want" language since these are the easiest forms of language to elicit. Think, for example, of how much easier it is to get a child to say the one-word name of an object than to generate a complete, meaningful statement about an object. When all language is seen as good, it's sensible to aim for the easiest types. Forces have allowed current intervention efforts to overlook the many disadvantages this "easier" language has for the ultimate development of effective language and communication.
Autism is a relatively new field. The syndrome was first described in the 1930s. Perhaps the situation that we are facing is an inevitable part of the growing pains of a new field. Regardless of the reasons, at this point in time, it is vital that the relevant disciplines (psychology, education, speech and language, neurology, etc.) begin to provide the long delayed, in-depth analyses of what language and communication skills can and should be taught to the children.
What "60 Minutes," with its prestige and power, might have done is to show the enormous potential of software in teaching children on the spectrum while at the same time offering insights into the current instructional situation where children, with and without apps, are not being provided the content that they need for their potential to be realized. That analysis is critical for parents of children with autism, as well as the society in general. Until "60 Minutes," or some comparable organization with a powerful reach, offers that analysis, we will continue to offer false hopes rather than real results.
Charlie Morris: Adventure Apps: When Nature Meets Technology
Sara Winter: The Problem Wth Stuff
Yes, I am so thankful that they do. It is unfortunate that Dr. Blank has not been trained to work with language software or understands the infinite possibilities of an I Pad.
Thankfully, software like Fast ForWord language programs are enabling some children diagnosed with autism to become effective producers of language.
Programs such as Fast ForWord offer audio and visual language training available to parents for the first time without the time and expense of psychologists. Also, for the first time, computers train and instruct without the limits placed on the child by the psychologist and are able to meet the daily challenges and needs of a child with language barriers. The savings alone will help parents afford the much needed instruction that is not possible.
Plus, another great program is Kahn Academy. This site offers free and meaningful instruction. Mr. Kahn has developed a one on one program that can be utilized at any time and offers development tracking.
The I Pad is a integral vehicle that allows the child to learn and repeat the instructions as many times as they want, something a human psychologist or special teacher is incapable of doing consistently on a daily basis.
Software programs already are delivering what a child needs to be able to use language in a meaningful way.
http://www.scilearn.com/blog/autistic-spectrum-asd-children.php
So, before writing offensive comments, please read Dr. Blank’s letter carefully, and then do some research if you don’t understand what she is talking about. To me, the 60 Minutes segment was an infomercial for the IPad, all smiles, and simplistic happy endings.
The way to stop the 'i want' when followed by a no with aggressive behaviors is to always give a choice to give them some power in what happens to them. IE...I want soda...No, sorry no soda it hurts your teeth but you can have _____ or _____. Not necessarily something that an Ipad is needed for but it's there in real time to find other options immediately. These kids need some control over there lives, just like the rest of us do, giving them choice after saying no almost always alleviates behaviors and with an ipad you can stop the temper tantrum easier because any and every visual can be called up so quickly because anger and excessive sensory information can often shut down auditory processing.
At the same time, the responses serve well to reflect the comments I made regarding the desperate need for a discussion of what constitutes key components of language and communication. Decisions have been made and programs developed (that are now set in stone) without this analysis ever taking place. The tone of many of the comments suggests a strong aversion to considering such an analysis. When key issues cannot even be placed on the table for discussion, the outlook for a field—and for the children-- is bleak.
The problem exists in teaching children with autism language in the same way that is expected of general knowledge of language gaining in typical children. Children with autism often learn in chunks of words, not in the building of one word to two words to three words..My son regressed into autism, he originally learned language in the general way but with the injury to his brain it changed the way he learned into chunks of words..Just look at Temple Grandin (who learned in chunks), learn from her and others that were able to gain significant language.. The fact is that generally children with autism are substantially underestimated..The Ipad helps destroy the myths of 'he can't do____' and gets on to the business of figuring out what he or she 'can do'..
As you know, it's really "autisms", so one size fits all approaches are doomed to fail. I loved the 60 Minutes piece because it offers genuine hope to parents and people with autism that more than a small handful of folks are working hard to develop the tools they so desperately need. I think the piece (which did rely on input from top consultants in the field) will lead people to ask their teachers, administrators, and professionals about what assistive technology may be available that will help them. That alone is a very good thing. I do wish that media types would always insert the word "some" before "autism" though. For more on app development, see "Hacking Autism"
http://www.hackingautism.org/
And yes, both my severely autistic kids have used laptops with a plug in mouse since they were 3. They can also go from pc to mac seamlessly while I struggle. It was a very simplistic story but hey, that's 60 minutes right? Xx
As a parent I did Hanen More Than Words, Pecs, Carbone's Verbal Behaviour and a number of therapist lead parent courses in order to learn to develop my children's language (I have 2 with ASD)
My experience with the growth in consumer tech solutions is that new parents are expecting it to do everything straight away. I call it the "toaster pastry" solution to developing your child's communication. Whereas you are better off learning how to toast the bread, butter it and and add your choice of spreads to suit your child's individual needs. Handing them an iPad without assessing what will work best, is like whipping open a toaster pastry & popping it in the toaster- no one learns anything.
Doubtless you are also committed to 'curing' autism as well. Bring it on. As a 51 year old Aspergergian, I dare you to try to cure me.
Please, just go back to your daddy's snake-oil farm instead of insulting those of us who actually have to live with the condition. Your characterizations are dangerous, offensive, and harmful to every adult living on the spectrum today.
Please don't ever write again that it is dangerous to teach autistic people to say what they want. Maybe what you meant to say was don't stop there-- and I would have no argument with that. But that's not what you said. Autistic people live in a world that regularly ignores us and what we want. Parents and professionals often have a very difficult time taking seriously the volition of people with autism. I don't think anyone who actually understood the real problems adolescents with autism face would say that the problem is that they've gotten too good at asking for what they want. It is a much more serious problem that when they communicate needs that make parents and professionals uncomfortable (for sex and relationships, mostly) it is much easier to demonize those legitimate needs than to come up with realistic solutions.
You make the assumption that since Andrew has Aspergers, he does not know anything people who have language challenges. That's bigotry. It's assuming that he is less than you, that he cannot be interested or knowledgeable about the autism spectrum except for his own situation. In his case, you happen to be completely wrong. Please learn more about real people with autism before you write anything about us again. You don't understand. You aren't close. You're making things worse for us. Please stop.